Luxurite's custom 82-inch Glass TV is just the thing for your episode of Teen Cribs

Sure it's the kind of distinction that only matters in some celeb's rented-for-the-day mansion, but Luxurite is proudly claiming to be the first company offering anything as big as its 82-inch Glass TV (42-inch pictured). So named because its glass panel front flicks from see through (for more convenient TV watching) to a mirror when it's turned off, listed specs show a 1080p resolution, 120,000:1 contrast ratio (yeah, right) and 3 HDMI inputs. Price? Don't even ask. Well-heeled UK customers looking to spice up their bathroom, wet bar or other areas can get details on how to place a custom order beyond the read link.

[Prevacator Posted Aug 1st 2010 11:34AM]

What the hell is with these companies pushing out like 60"+ HDTVs and STILL sticking a fucking 1080p resolution? You have computer monitors with that are only 30" in size and have a resolution of 2560x1600.

Let's get those damn resolutions bumped up before the monitors become so large you can still every individual pixel because they haven't bothered to change the damn resolution.

[erh Posted Aug 1st 2010 12:48PM]

If you want to disguise your TV, I have a much better and cheaper solution than turning it into a mirror: get a projector with a motorized screen.

[cc3d Posted Aug 1st 2010 3:54PM]

it's an article about a non-existent product rendering! News? Not!

[wakeskater17 Posted Aug 1st 2010 3:55PM]

the mirror will be the tv's downfall.. one way mirrors work by one side being much brighter than the other side. so dark movies would look terrible on this. if the contrast was actually that good you would see nothing but a mirror in scenes which are composed of mostly black area.

[epwnym Posted Aug 1st 2010 4:05PM]

Mirror/TV in the bedroom? Yes please.

[zoomos Posted Aug 1st 2010 5:36PM]

I was about to say, theirs no way thats 82 inches.

Well this one is over $100k
http://twitpic.com/2as9am

I would imagine 82 would be around 60 to 80k, still too much for me.

[JDM Posted Aug 1st 2010 8:19PM]

Is there anyway Engadget would stop reporting obviously BS contrast ratios? You don't get figures into tens or hundreds of thousands to one in real contrast ratios, it has to be done with "dynamic" method and it won't represent the picture quality you will actually get, it just represents various stunts that are either unrealistic or result in wildly changing screen brightness that's very obvious.

[FarmerBob Posted Aug 2nd 2010 1:09AM]

"Things in this mirror may look worse than they actually do."